← Library
Patna High CourtMJC/1714/2022disposed

Rukmani Devi v. The State Of Bihar

2025-09-19Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1714 of 2022 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14375 of 2017 ====================================================== Rukmani Devi Wife of Late Ram Sharan Paswan, Resident of VillageChousa Basti 07, P.O. and P.S.- Chousa, District- Madhepura. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Collector, Purnea, namely Sri Pankaj Kumar Jha.

2.

The District Panchayat Raj Officer, District- Purnea, namely Sri Vivekanand.

3.

The Block Development Officer, Bhawanipur (Purnea), namely Sri Atulya Kumar Arya.

4.

The Treasury Officer, Purnea, namely Ram Sujeet Kumar Tuntun. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

None For the Opposite Party/s :

Smt.Archana Meenakshee (GP- 6) Mr. Harish Singh, AC to GP-6 Mr. Rohit Singh, AC to GP-6 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 19-09-2025 The learned counsel for the opposite parties seeks to file second supplementary show cause, copy whereof has already been filed online. Let the same be kept on record. 2.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the counsel for the petitioner is not appearing since last two dates, nonetheless, a decision has been taken by the Screening Committee, enclosed as Annexure-R/7 to the second supplementary show cause, whereby and whereunder the claim of the deceased husband of the petitioner for grant of

Patna High Court MJC No.1714 of 2022(7) dt.19-09-2025 2/2 ACP/MACP has been rejected, as would be apparent from the decision contained in Memo No. 1685/Dist. Pan. dated 15.09.2025.

3.

This Court finds that the order of this Court dated 24.04.2018 passed in CWJC No. 14375 of 2017 has now stood complied with, however while disposing of the present petition, liberty is granted to the petitioner to assail the aforesaid decision contained in Memo No. 1685/Dist. Pan. dated 15.09.2025, if so advised.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) S.Sb/- U